Jump to content

Dunabar

Members
  • Content Count

    332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Dunabar last won the day on April 15

Dunabar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

288 Corporal

1 Follower

About Dunabar

  • Rank
    Sergeant Major
  • Birthday December 22

Recent Profile Visitors

958 profile views
  1. Hey Folks Time to wrap up round 3 of Weapons that can enhance WW3 and today we have what almost amounts to a modern Anti-Tank Rifle (though not actually, it's closer to that of a Light Cannon than anything else.) the XM109 AMPR, or as I'm simply calling it for the sake of the post & degree of realism, the M109 AMPR. A nasty prototype weapon created from the Barrett M82 or the U.S M107 .50 BMG and is even stronger in terms of damage dealing capability than the M82/M107. But, that is enough bla bla! If you wish to read other Suggestion posts I have made, click the link below. Otherwise, lets get started with the M109 AMPR. ---- Dunabar's "Master Suggestion Post Archive" ---- Contents of this post Section 1 - The M109 AMPR - Real life information behind the M109 AMPR. Section 2 - Favored Playstyle & Stat Comparisons - Comparing stats between current in-game Special Weapons and suggested Special Weapons with the M109 AMPR. Section 3 - Special Features - Special features I think the M109 AMPR should have. Section 4 - Customization - Customization options I think the M109 AMPR should have. ---- Section 1 - The M109 AMPR Introduction & Demonstration Videos of the M109 AMPR. - Still looking for videos over this Weapon. Extra Information sources. XM109 AMPR - TFB XM109 AMPR - Gun Wiki XM109 AMPR - Wiki The Semi-Automatic XM109 AMPR, formerly known as the Objective Sniper Weapon (OSW), is a prototype Anti-Material Rifle/Grenade Launcher created by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing (X being a marking for a weapon being a prototype in the U.S Military.) It's design was based on the battle proven M82/M107 Anti-Material Rifle, using largely the same design makeup to create the XM109 AMPR with the largest change being to the upper receiver to allow the weapon system to chamber the 25x59mm Grenade Round that it fires. The 25x59mm Grenade Rounds currently come in two primary types, High Explosive & Armor-Piercing. However, this ammunition is the same as the cancelled XM307 ACSW (Advanced Crew Served Weapon) project which was designed around creating a 25mm automatic grenade launcher that fired smart airburst munitions. This means that, in theory, the XM109 AMPR can also fire Airburst rounds as well, which when partnered up with the BORS (Barrett Optical Ranging System) ballistic computer, could mean that the XM109 AMPR can accurately place airburst attacks on target wherever the shooter needs them. But, this is a theory right now and overall the current XM109 AMPR Project is currently in a state of Unknown. The project hasn't been officially cancelled nor adopted. When last updated, Barrett was researching ways to reduce the massive recoil of the weapon as the last registry of it was considered beyond Human limitation. So, if the weapon was to be added to the game, what playstyle would the gun favor, and most importantly where exactly would it stand when compared to generally similar Special Weapons? ---- Section 2 - Favored Playstyle & Stat Comparisons If added to the game, the M109 AMPR should serve as a bridge between Precision Sniper Rifles & Special Weapons that favors Defensive players above all else. It's damage should stand somewhere between the TOR & RPG-7, though more towards the TOR above all else. Against enemy Infantry, the AMPR should be deadly on direct impact, and have a small 1.5 to 2.5 meter splash damage radius when using it's stock HEDP rounds (It is firing a grenade round larger than .50 BMG after all.) Against enemy Vehicles the damage should obviously vary between the types. But, AFVs & MBTs should only be damaged by the AMPR if the weapon hits them in the rear with HEDP rounds or if it's using AP rounds for everywhere else. To balance out this weapon it should be Heavy, one of the weaker special weapons (in terms of general damage), high recoil & modest spread to dissuade spam firing, small ammo pool, and should be treated as a AMR (Anti-Material Rifle) which requires players to go Prone before they can ADS with the weapon. In turn the Player gets what amounts to a free (BP cost wise) Light Cannon that can be suppressed, placed wherever they feel is best to take up a position in, doesn't generate a smoke trail back to them, allows some the ability to fire rounds in fairly quick succession for moderately quick multi-hits, and reload the weapon without needing to return to the deployment zone of their team via the Ammunition or Equipment Bag. Now, lets move on to comparing possible stats of the M109 AMPR vs. the RPG-7 and the suggested GM-94 & Spike. I made some changes to my color coding system and I think it will give a better picture than the older color coding system I was using prior to this. (S) - The weapon is one I have suggested but isn't actually in the game currently. Cyan - Suggested Weapon is at a notable advantage compared to this Weapon Green - Suggested Weapon is at a advantage compared to this Weapon Yellow - Suggested Weapon is either equal, at a marginal advantage, or at a marginal disadvantage compared to this Weapon Orange - Suggested Weapon is at a disadvantage compared to this Weapon Red - Suggested Weapon is at a notable disadvantage compared to this Weapon Please note: I cannot test these stats to confirm balance, so think of these as more of a proposed starting place for testing on the PTE, and I'm comparing the stats of the weapons from a stock design against another stock design without taking customization into consideration. This is primarily to help keep the post small and avoid making a massive amount of variables to take into consideration. AMPR proposed and compared stats. AMPR Weight: 31.00 RPG-7: 16.8 (S) GM-94: 17.50 (S) Spike: 28.00 AMPR Recoil: 0.8 RPG-7: 6.0 (S) GM-94: 3.0 (S) Spike: 0.1 AMPR Spread: 0.4 RPG-7: 1.5 (S) GM-94: 2.0 (S) Spike: 0.8 AMPR Reload time: 3.3 RPG-7: 3.3 Seconds (S) GM-94: 4.0 Seconds (S) Spike: Doesn't reload AMPR Rate of Fire: 80 RPG-7: 60 (S) GM-94: 130 (S) Spike: 1 AMPR Caliber: 25x59mm RPG-7: 40mm (S) GM-94: 43mm (S) Spike: Tandem-Charge HEAT AMPR Muzzle Velocity: 460 m/s RPG-7: 300 m/s (S) GM-94: 100 m/s (S) Spike: 150 m/s With this out of the way we move on to special features which is going to be some what short ---- Section 3 - Special Features 25x59mm Munitions - This special Grenade round is all the M109 AMPR fires and should only come in Fragmentation, High Explosive Dual Purpose, and Armor Piercing. Anti-Material Rifle - Should require players to be Prone before being able to shoot while Aiming Down Sight (ADS) just like the TOR will. Three Full Magazines - The M109 AMPR should only have three full magazines (15 rounds in Total) of either Fragmentation, HEDP, or AP. Unique Muzzle Brake & Suppressor - Because the M109 AMPR has a unique Muzzle Brake & Suppressor in real life, the AMPR in game should have them as well to offer some degree of differences. Airburst Munitions - Should the Developers add some form of Airburst munitions in the future to certain weapons, the M109 AMPR should be one of the weapons considered for the Airburst munitions as well for increased flexibility Caliber Conversion - Should the Developers add Caliber Conversion in the game, the M109 AMPR could be converted back down to a standard M82/M107 AMR (Barrett .50 for those that don't know the designations) or visa versa if they want to make the M107 instead of the M109. ---- Section 4 - Customization Now this part will be rather quick since I don't plan to go over stats or anything like that. Just a quick mention of what customization options the M109 AMPR should and should not have access to in my opinion, Primary Sights All Sights optional Secondary Sights All Sights optional Barrels Medium Barrel (Stock) Muzzles M109 Muzzle Brake (Stock) M109 Suppressor Lowers Bipods only (It's a AMR, no point in offering the other Lowers.) Side All sides optional Magazines 5 Rounds (Stock) Ammunition Fragmentation - Anti-Personnel focused rounds. High Explosive Dual Purpose - Balanced Anti-Personnel & Vehicle rounds. (Stock) Armor Piercing - Anti-Vehicle focused rounds. As for bodyparts there is nothing to add since the weapon is still a Prototype. But, the Developers can always get creative with it if they like. And with that out of the way we're done. I hope everyone likes the idea of the M109 AMPR being added to the game, even if not exactly how I suggest adding it. It's rather tricky to find a variety of weapons in this particular category just like Battle Rifles & Precision Sniper Rifles. There is only so many ways one can differ things that explode, or are used to destroy Vehicles, or lob grenades into a target area, and etc etc...Mainly because of both realistic Human limitations & Technological limitations. But, this will wrap up round 3 of Weapons that could enhance WW3. I'm going to take a little break from these posts after this, mainly to get some other suggestions squared away, wrap up my suggestions for the WW3 Metagame, and some other stuff. So, till I see you at the next suggestion post and the future 4th round of Weapons that can enhance WW3... Have a good one folks!
  2. Hey Folks Time to get one of the last weapon suggestions out of round 3 of "Weapons that could enhance WW3" and today we will cover the popular HK21. A very cool GPMG out of Germany that is more known for it's service outside of Germany, rather than it's service in Germany, and a gun that has a good bit of stuff that Players could ideally do with it if all the pieces fell into place. After this post I just have Special Weapons left to go, then I'm going to take a little break from Weapon Suggestion posts to get round 4 of "Weapons that could enhance WW3" all figured out, and cover some stuff I have been planning to cover for awhile out of the way. If you wish to read other Suggestion posts I have made, click the link below. Otherwise, lets get started with the HK21 ---- Dunabar's "Master Suggestion Post Archive" ---- Contents of this post Section 1 - The HK21- Real life information behind the HK21. Section 2 - Favored Playstyle & Stat Comparisons - Comparing stats between current in-game LMGs and suggested LMGs with the HK21. Section 3 - Special Features - Special features I think the HK21 should have. Section 4 - Customization - Customization options I think the HK21 should have. ---- Section 1 - The HK21 (left to right) HK21 without a Belt Box and a HK21 with a Belt-Box. Introduction & Demonstration Videos of the HK21. HK21/23 - TFB TV (Warning, full auto fire at the start of the video.) HK21 - Forgotten Weapons HK23 - Machine Gun Mike Extra Information sources HK21/HK23 - Modern Firearms HK21 - Gun Wiki HK21 - Wiki Back when the G8 Battle Rifle was created, H&K wanted to a created a General Purpose Machine Gun based off of the G3's design to go along side their Battle Rifle. What would come would be the HK21 which would largely see service outside of Germany with the Nations of Portugal, Sweden, Peru, Morocco, Thailand, South Africa, Denmark, United States, and others. During the 1980s the HK21A1 would undergo a modernization alongside the HK11A1 which would result in a new modular family of Machine Guns which share a lot of commonality between each other. Outside of it's ease of ability to be converted to use different calibers, the HK21 also features a four point fire selector that allows for safe, semi-automatic, 3-round burst, and fully automatic fire which grants the shooter plenty of choices for their situational need. A rather unique feature given that most Machine Guns only have safety & fully automatic fire. Today the HK21 is still in service with several countries such as Mexico, Jordan, Bolivia, El Salvador, Malaysia, and others providing it's reliability & adaptability where it is needed for them. So, if the gun was to be added to the game, what playstyle would the gun favor and most importantly where exactly would it stand when compared to the other Machine Guns? ---- Section 2 - Favored Playstyle & Stat Comparisons In terms of playstyle, the HK21 should be able to favor all sorts of different players as a rather adaptable machine gun through customization, a sort of jack-of-all trades, but a Master of none of them at once. To balance this it should have moderately high recoil, be modestly heavy, fairly high spread, slow reload speed (it's awkward in real life), and overall be much more demanding on players by forcing them to learn when to switch between the different fire modes. In exchange the HK21 should have deeper customization than most Machine Guns, have a high rate of fire, and middle of the road muzzle velocity. Now, lets move on to comparing possible stats of the HK21 vs. the Pecheneg, UKM, MG5, and the suggested LWMMG & M68. I made some changes to my color coding system and I think it will give a better picture than the older color coding system I was using prior to this. (S) - The weapon is one I have suggested but isn't actually in the game currently. Cyan - Suggested Weapon is at a notable advantage compared to this Weapon Green - Suggested Weapon is at a advantage compared to this Weapon Yellow - Suggested Weapon is either equal, at a marginal advantage, or at a marginal disadvantage compared to this Weapon Orange - Suggested Weapon is at a disadvantage compared to this Weapon Red - Suggested Weapon is at a notable disadvantage compared to this Weapon Please note: I cannot test these stats to confirm balance, so think of these as more of a proposed starting place for testing on the PTE, and I'm comparing the stats of the weapons from a stock design against another stock design without taking customization into consideration. This is primarily to help keep the post small and avoid making a massive amount of variables to take into consideration. HK21 proposed and compared stats. HK21 Effective ranges: 0 - 105m (40 damage.) Damage decreases at 101m - 140m (30 damage) Pecheneg Bullpup: 0 - 105m (43 Damage.) Damage decreases at 120m - 135m (30 Damage) UKM: 0 - 105m (40 Damage.) Damage decreases at 106m - 135m (32 Damage) MG5: 0 - 105m (40 Damage.) Damage decreases at 106m - 135m (32 Damage) (S) LWMMG: 0 - 120m (55 damage.) Damage decreases at 121m - 140m (43 damage) (S) M68: 0 - 100m (33 damage.) Damage decreases at 101m - 140m (30 damage) HK21 Weight: 21.3 Pecheneg Bullpup: 20.2 UKM: 21.7 MG5: 30.0 (S) LWMMG: 32.9 (S) M68: 17.5 HK21 Recoil: 0.88 Pecheneg Bullpup: 0.73 UKM: 0.85 MG5: 0.9 (S) LWMMG: 0.9 (S) M68: 0.36 HK21 Spread: 0.28 Pecheneg Bullpup: 0.35 UKM: 0.3 MG5: 0,25 (S) LWMMG: 0.20 (S) M68: 0.18 HK21 Reload time: 8.4 Seconds Pecheneg Bullpup: 8.7 Seconds UKM: 7.9 Seconds MG5: 7.9 Seconds (S) LWMMG: 7.9 Seconds (S) M68: 6.8 Seconds HK21 Rate of Fire: 800 RPMs Pecheneg Bullpup: 550 RPMs UKM: 640 RPMs MG5: 720 RPMs (S) LWMMG: 400 RPMs (S) M68: 550 RPMs HK21 Caliber: 7.62x51mm Pecheneg Bullpup: 7.62x54mm UKM: 7.62x51mm MG5: 7.62x51mm (S) LWMMG: .338 Norma Magnum (S) M68: 6.8x51 Sig HK21 Muzzle Velocity: 850 m/s Pecheneg Bullpup: 900 m/s UKM: 860 m/s MG5: 785 m/s (S) LWMMG: 800 m/s (S) M68: 820 m/s HK21 Bullets to Kill: HDPE: 3 / PTLN: 4 / Cer: 4 / STL: 5 Pecheneg Bullpup: HDPE: 3 / PTLN: 3 / Cer: 4 / STL: 5 UKM: HDPE: 3 / PTLN: 4 / Cer: 4 / STL: 5 MG5: HDPE: 3 / PTLN: 4 / Cer: 4 / STL: 5 (S) LWMMG: HDPE: 2 / PTLN: 2 / Cer: 2 / STL: 3 (S) M68: HDPE: 4 / PTLN: 4 / Cer: 6 / STL: 8 With this out of the way we move on to special features. ---- Section 3 - Special Features This will be short since there isn't much that I think really needs to be mentioned at this time. Burst Fire - The HK21 should have the option to use Semi-Automatic, 3-Round Burst, and Fully Automatic fire like all Assault Rifles currently do. More Magazine options - The HK21 should have access to a 30 round magazine, 80 round Drum magazine, and 100 round Belt Box with the 100 round Belt Box being the stock option. All Barrel options - The HK21 should have access to all Barrel lengths with the medium barrel being the stock barrel. Caliber Conversion - Should WW3 allow Players to convert guns to different calibers, the HK21 should have access to 7.62x39, 5.56x45 NATO, and .308 Winchester ammunition on top of the 7.62x51 NATO. Otherwise just keep the weapon as the HK21 with the 7.62x51 NATO. ---- Section 4 - Customization Now this part will be rather quick since I don't plan to go over stats or anything. Just a quick mention of what the HK21 should & should not have access to in my opinion when it comes to customization options. Primary Sights All Sights optional Secondary Sights All Sights optional Barrels Long Barrel Medium Barrel (Stock) Short Barrel Muzzles All Muzzles optional Lower All Lowers optional Side All Side mounts optional Magazines 30 Round Magazine 80 Round Drum Magazine 100 Round Belt Box (Stock) Ammunition All (Gun) Ammunition Types optional And there doesn't seem to be any real aftermarket parts for cosmetics, so I'm either looking in the wrong place or there purely isn't anything out there. The Developers could get creative if they want of course. With all of that out of the way though, this brings the post to an end. I hope you like the idea of seeing the HK21 added to the game, even if maybe not the in the way I have suggested. This is honestly a very cool gun, not just because of visual appeal, but the idea that you can get so many different configurations out of this gun if caliber conversion becomes a thing. You can have the HK11 one moment, the HK23 in the next moment, go back to the HK21, or go with the very rare HK22 (Watch the first video I posted if I may have confused you with all this.) A nice bit of neat stuff that could be done with this weapon if all the pieces fell into place. But, for now lets wrap this up. Till the next suggestion post comes around... Have a good one folks!
  3. Hey Folks Still have a few more of these gun suggestion posts to complete for Round 3 of "Weapons that could enhance WW3" and I figured I would cover another weapon I have suggested once before to give it a chance for individual judgement like all the other weapons I have suggested. But, I wanted to go a little further and suggest a weapon that currently isn't operated by any Military or Law Enforcement groups, that could join the ranks of outsider weapons like that of the DMG Nine-Millie & Alpha (to my knowledge anyways.) So, today we will be covering the American Micro Dynamic Rifle (MDR.) If you wish to read other Suggestion posts I have made, click the link below. Otherwise, lets get started with the MDR. ---- Dunabar's "Master Suggestion Post Archive" ---- Contents of this post Section 1 - The MDR - Real life information behind the MDR Section 2 - Favored Playstyle & Stat Comparisons - Comparing stats between current in-game BRs and suggested BR with the MDR. Section 3 - Special Features - Special features I think the MDR should have Section 4 - Customization - Customization options I think the MDR should have ---- Section 1 - The MDR The MDR (Micro Dynamic Rifle) Introduction & Demonstration Videos of the MDR. MDR - Forgotten Weapons MDR - InRangeTV MDR - Garand Thumb MDR - Military Arms Channel MDR - IraqVeteran8888 Extra Information sources MDR - Desert Tech MDR - Modern Firearms MDR - Gun Wiki The Desert Tech MDR (Micro Dynamic Rifle) is a multi-caliber, Bullpup Rifle created by the Desert Tech firearms company. First seen in 2014, but not actually officially being produced till 2017, the company's goal was to create a highly ergonomic, ambidextrous, adaptable, and compact weapon system. While these features were achieved, it was internal problems that would give the MDR a bad reputation in it's early days, requiring the company to modify or entirely re-engineer internal parts of the weapon such as the Gas System, and Extractor which was breaking at a high frequency all of which have been resolved. Original prototypes of the weapon also featured a three position fire selector to allow for the weapon to either be set to Safe, Semi, or Fully Automatic fire. But, because there has been no interest from either Military or Law Enforcement, the modern MDR has only ever come with the capability of Semi-Automatic fire in the Civilian market. Current conversion kits allow for the usage of .223 Wylde, .308 Winchester, 300 BLK, 5.56x45 NATO, and 7.62x51 NATO. So if the gun was to be added to the game, what playstyle would the gun favor, and most importantly where exactly would it stand when compared to the other Battle Rifles? ---- Section 2 - Favored Playstyle & Stat Comparisons In terms of playstyle, the MDR should largely be a medium-long range focused Battle Rifle that favors players with steady aim that like to keep the enemy at a distance or flanking their targets rather than fighting them face to face. The weapon should feature no fully automatic fire capability (to mimic that it's not a Military or Law Enforcement Weapon and add different weapon variety), have one of the highest muzzle velocities for a Battle Rifle in game using the .308 Winchester ammunition, and of course naturally have the positives & negatives that come with a being a bullpup weapon. To balance this out further however, I would suggest giving it a modestly high spread to discourage reckless spam fire, modestly long reload speed, and higher than average weight (for balance reasons not realistic reasons.) Now, lets move on to comparing possible stats of the MDR vs. the SCAR-H, M417, and the suggested BREN 2 BR & ASh-12. I made some changes to my color coding system and I think it will give a better picture than the older color coding system I was using prior to this. I'm still getting it all fine tuned as well, so I will be updating all my current weapon suggestion posts later on. (S) - The weapon is one I have suggested but isn't actually in the game currently. Cyan - Suggested Weapon is at a notable advantage compared to this Weapon Green - Suggested Weapon is at a advantage compared to this Weapon Yellow - Suggested Weapon is either equal, at a marginal advantage, or at a marginal disadvantage compared to this Weapon Orange - Suggested Weapon is at a disadvantage compared to this Weapon Red - Suggested Weapon is at a notable disadvantage compared to this Weapon Please note: Once again, I cannot test these stats to confirm balance, so think of these as more of a proposed starting place for testing on the PTE, and I'm comparing the stats of the weapons from a stock design against another stock design without taking customization into consideration. This is primarily to help keep the post small and keep what little sanity I have left in me. MDR proposed and compared stats. MDR Effective ranges: 115m (44 damage.) Damage decreases at 116m - 135m (32 damage) SCAR-H: 0 - 105m (40 damage.) Damage decreases at 106m - 135m (32 damage) M417: 0 - 105m (40 damage.) Damage decreases at 106m - 135m (32 damage) (S) BREN 2 BR: 105m (40 damage.) Damage decreases at 106m - 135m (32 damage) (S) ASh-12: 0 - 35m (55 damage.) Damage decreases at 36m - 135m (38 damage) MDR Weight: 19.0 SCAR-H: 17.6 M417: 18.3 (S) BREN 2 BR: 17.9 (S) ASh-12: 25.0 MDR Recoil: 0.66 SCAR-H: 0.92 M417: 0.95 (S) BREN 2 BR: 0.87 (S) ASh-12: 0.98 MDR Spread: 0.26 SCAR-H: 0.2 M417: 0.14 (S) BREN 2 BR: 0.22 (S) ASh-12: 0.28 MDR Reload time: 4.8 Seconds SCAR-H: 4.0 Seconds M417: 1.0 Seconds (S) BREN 2 BR: 4.8 Seconds (S) ASh-12: 4.8 Seconds MDR Rate of Fire: 620 RPMs SCAR-H: 525 RPMs M417: 430 RPMs (S) BREN 2 BR: 620 RPMs (S) ASh-12: 600 RPMs MDR Caliber: .308 Winchester SCAR-H: 7,62x51mm M417: 7,62x51mm (S) BREN 2 BR: 7,62x51mm (S) ASh-12: 12.7x55mm MDR Muzzle Velocity: 900 m/s SCAR-H: 714 m/s M417: 817 m/s (S) BREN 2 BR: 680 m/s (S) ASh-12: 290 m/s MDR Bullets to Kill: HDPE: 3 / PTLN: 4 / Cer: 4 / STL: 5 SCAR-H: HDPE: 3 / PTLN: 4 / Cer: 4 / STL: 5 M417: HDPE: 3 / PTLN: 4 / Cer: 4 / STL: 5 (S) BREN 2 BR: HDPE: 3 / PTLN: 4 / Cer: 4 / STL: 5 (S) ASh-12: HDPE: 2 / PTLN: 2 / Cer: 2 / STL: 3 With this out of the way we move on to special features. ---- Section 3 - Special Features This will actually be short since there isn't much that really needs to be said. No Fully Automatic Fire - The MDR hasn't been adopted by any Military or Law Enforcement and is strictly a Civilian weapon currently. To add more variety in weapon choices (In the sense that not all guns are the same), I would recommend keeping the MDR as a Semi-Automatic only Battle Rifle to reflect that primarily civilian owned weapon. Bullpup Weapon - The gun is a Bullpup and thus should (once again) have the benefits & drawbacks of a Bullpup weapon. .308 Winchester - While .308 Winchester & 7.62x51 NATO are not massively different from one another, the .308 Winchester ammunition has more pressure build up in it do to thicker walls (If I understood correctly in my research.) This extra pressure causes the bullet to fly faster and thus have greater impact on the target, so the caliber should do slightly higher damage than the 7.62x51 NATO ammunition, but not completely outclass it beyond effective range & muzzle velocity. Caliber Conversion - Should WW3 allow Players to convert guns to different calibers, the MDR should have access to 6.8×43 Rem SPC, 5.56x45 NATO, and ,300 Blackout. Otherwise I would just keep it as .308 Winchester. ---- Section 4 - Customization Now this part will be rather quick since I don't plan to go over stats or anything. Just a quick mention of what the BREN 2 BR should & should not have access to (in my opinion) when it comes to customization options. Primary Sights All Sights optional Secondary Sights All Sights optional Barrels All Barrels optional Muzzles All Muzzles optional Lower All Lowers optional Side All side mounts optional Magazines 10 round Magazines 20 round Magazines Ammunition All (Gun) Ammunition Types optional And there doesn't seem to be any real noticeable aftermarket parts, so I think the Developers are pretty much in the open to make their own creative designs if they would like to do so. And with that we bring this post to an end. I hope everyone likes the MDR, even if maybe not exactly in the way I have suggested it. I was going to cover the M14 EBR next since I wanted to cover a weapon I have suggested once before, one that could serve as the sort of the counter-ASh-12, where it was better for longer range engagements & terrible at close range engagements. But, I feel pretty confident that the MK14/M14 EBR/Whatever you want to call it will be coming to WW3 at some point without me further pushing my support for it. So, I figured I would cover the MDR instead to offer a Battle Rifle style weapon (In that it fires a full powered caliber of ammunition) that didn't need to necessarily be in 7.62x51 NATO, so it could be a little different from what we have currently by making it's ammunition perform a little differently, and the weapon itself be something a little more different. Sure it's not a massive difference, but every little bit helps overall. Plus we still don't have a Bullpup Battle Rifle, so that gave it another plus in my book. The Developers could also get more than one use out of this weapon because it can shoot multiple calibers and does come in a MDR-C configuration. But, for now it's time to bring this post to an end, so till the next suggestion post comes around where I will likely cover a Machine Gun next... Have a good one folks!
  4. Yeah that was the Six12 underslung. It was a fun little thing even though it didn't work right lol.
  5. Hey Folks Took some time off to recharge my metaphorical WW3 batteries and handle some real life matters that demanded my attention (Life yo...So cruel.) Wanted to start something new, but I still have to finish my suggestions for the WW3 Metagame, my 3rd round of gun suggestions, and some other stuff. So, I figured I would start off easy and cover a Shotgun today for my 3rd round of weapon suggestions. A pretty neat little bit of Thunder from Down Under, the MAUL out of Australia. If you wish to read other Suggestion posts I have made, click the link below. Otherwise, lets get started with the MAUL ---- Dunabar's "Master Suggestion Post Archive" ---- Contents of this post Section 1 - The MAUL - Real life information behind the MAUL Section 2 - Favored Playstyle & Stat Comparisons - Comparing stats between current in-game Shotguns and suggested Shotguns with the MAUL. Section 3 - Special Features - Special features I think the MAUL should have. Section 4 - Customization - Customization options I think the MAUL should have. ---- Section 1 - The MAUL Standalone variant of the MAUL Shotgun with loaded tube (left) and unloaded tube (right) Introduction & Demonstration Videos of the MAUL. Still looking for good videos of the MAUL, most of them right now are related to COD, and that really doesn't tickle my fancy... Extra Information sources. MAUL - Gun Wiki MAUL - Wiki The MAUL is a lightweight, semi-automatic, electronically initiated, superposed-loaded shotgun created by the company Metal Storm out of Brisbane, Australia. The weapon comes in two forms; a standalone variant and a underslung variant which can be mounted to a weapon system that allows for it (typically an Assault Rifle or Battle Rifle.) The weapon is loaded by inserting a munition tube in the weapon barrel (think of it like loading a Muzzle Loader rifle), then is fired out of that same munition tube via an electronically initiated trigger system (IE: there is no hammer striking a primer to ignite the gunpowder to fire off the shots in the shell), and because of this electronic trigger system the MAUL is capable of firing a mixture of lethal & non-lethal ammunition. So if the gun was to be added to the game, what playstyle would the gun favor, and most importantly where exactly would it stand when compared to the other Shotguns? ---- Section 2 - Favored Playstyle & Stat Comparisons The Playstyle the MAUL shotgun would favor is no different from other Shotguns, by it's very nature it would favor more aggressive players. To both balance this weapon and differ it from the other Shotguns however, I would suggest a slower reload speed, higher than average hip fire spread, a reduced shot count, and I wouldn't allow it to carry 1 extra round in the tube (It's factually impossible for the gun). This would make the Shotgun favor players that are accurate shooters and not People that like to hip fire around corners. Outside of this, the MAUL should be one of the lightest shotguns around (if not thee lightest shotgun), have very little recoil, a faster firing speed than the MCS (though lower than the VEPR-12 and yes I know the two have the exact same fire rate, but I feel pretty confident that the VEPR-12's ROF is mislabeled), and as a bonus have a little bit of a noise reduction (not saying silence the weapon, just make it a little quieter than other Shotguns.) Now, lets move on to comparing possible stats of the MAUL vs. the MCS, VEPR-12, and the suggested AA-12 & SAP-6. I made some changes to my color coding system and I think it will give a better picture than the older color coding system I was using prior to this. (S) - The weapon is one I have suggested but isn't actually in the game currently. Cyan - Suggested Weapon is at a notable advantage compared to this Weapon Green - Suggested Weapon is at a advantage compared to this Weapon Yellow - Suggested Weapon is either equal, at a marginal advantage, or at a marginal disadvantage compared to this Weapon Orange - Suggested Weapon is at a disadvantage compared to this Weapon Red - Suggested Weapon is at a notable disadvantage compared to this Weapon Please note: I cannot test these stats to confirm balance, so think of these as more of a proposed starting place for testing on the PTE, and I'm comparing the stats of the weapons from a stock design against another stock design without taking customization into consideration. This is primarily to help keep the post small and avoid making a massive amount of variables to take into consideration. Special Note: Muzzle Velocity & Bullets to Kill are not listed in game for Shotguns currently, thus I will not try to balance around these stats. However, I will not fully remove them from this post in the event that something changes. MAUL proposed and compared stats. MAUL Effective ranges: 10m (24 damage.) Damage decreases at 11m - 30m (19 damage.) Damage decreases at 31m - 45m (10 damage.) Damage decreases at 46m - 75m (0 damage.) MCS: 15m (24 damage.) Damage decreases at 16m - 30m (19 damage.) Damage decreases at 31m - 45m (10 damage.) Damage decreases at 46m - 75m (1 damage.) VEPR-12: 15m (16-15 damage.) Damage decreases at 16m - 30m (12 damage.) Damage decreases at 31m - 45m (7 damage.) Damage decreases at 46m - 75m (0 damage.) (S) AA-12: 15m (12-11 damage.) Damage decreases at 16m - 30m (9 damage.) Damage decreases at 31m - 45m (4 damage.) Damage decreases at 46m - 75m (0 damage.) (S) SAP-6: 10m (24 damage.) Damage decreases at 11m - 30m (19 damage.) Damage decreases at 31m - 45m (10 damage.) Damage decreases at 46m - 75m (1 damage.) MAUL Weight: 4.5 MCS: 8.9 VEPR-12: 11.4 (S) AA-12: 14.5 (S) SAP-6: 7.0 MAUL Recoil: 1.2 MCS: 2.7 VEPR-12: 2,0 (S) AA-12: 0.85 (S) SAP-6: 2.3 MAUL Spread: 0.9 MCS: 0.5 VEPR-12: 0.7 (S) AA-12: 0.14 (S) SAP-6: 0.8 MAUL Reload time: 2.9 Seconds MCS: 2.3 Seconds VEPR-12: 3.1 Seconds (S) AA-12: 3.7 Seconds (S) SAP-6: 1.8 Seconds MAUL Rate of Fire: 425 MCS: 400 VEPR-12: 400 (S) AA-12: 500 (S) SAP-6: 350 MAUL Caliber: 12 Gauge MCS: 12 Gauge VEPR-12: 12 Gauge (S) AA-12: 12 Gauge (S) SAP-6: 12 Gauge MAUL Muzzle Velocity: MCS: VEPR-12: (S) AA-12: (S) SAP-6: MAUL Bullets to Kill: HDPE: / PTLN: / Cer: / STL: MCS: VEPR-12: (S) AA-12: (S) SAP-6: With this out of the way we move on to special features which is going to be pretty short because there isn't a lot to cover. ---- Section 3 - Special Features Limited Barrel & Magazine Options - The MAUL's barrel length is determined by the munition tube put into it, that tube also determines the amount of Ammunition the MAUL can fire per-tube, and so far I haven't seen anything that suggests that the MAUL has any larger munition tubes beyond 5 stacked shells that currently come stock with it. So it should be default limited to a Short barrel & 5-round tube. No Muzzle options - Again the weapon fires it's ammunition directly from the munition tube that is inserted into it, so there is really no point in having different muzzle options for the weapon as it wouldn't realistically benefit from them that I can see (I could be wrong also.) (And before you swing that "But video game" response at me, I don't even support the fact that Shotguns lose close range damage just because they use longer barrels. So "But video game" isn't going to sway me.) ---- Section 4 - Customization Now this part will be rather quick since I don't plan to go over stats or anything like that as usual. Just a quick mention of what customization options the MAUL should and should not have access to in my opinion, Primary Sights All Sights optional Secondary Sights All Sights optional Barrels Short Barrel (Stock) Muzzles None Lower All Lowers optional Side All side mounts optional Magazines 5 Round Magazine (Stock) Ammunition N/A till Shotguns get their special ammunition As for different bodyparts for the gun itself, there doesn't seem to be anything special on offer. However, I can see the devs giving additional options for pistol grips & stocks from current weapons and maybe some custom stuff for the upper rail & lower rail to give it a little more character while also allowing for the usage of foregrips & side mount attachments. Outside of that though, nothing special. And with that this brings another weapon suggestion post to an end. I hope everyone likes the idea of seeing the MAUL Shotgun being added to the game, even if maybe not exactly how I think it should be added. I really think the Developers should consider adding the MAUL shotgun at some point primarily because of the ability to get two entirely different uses out of it as either a Standalone Shotgun or as a Underslung attachment for certain weapons. Beyond that you have a visually unique weapon, it would require a unique loading animation because of the munition tube (small differences are nice after all!), and it gives another Nation of the world some unique representation in WW3. But, for now and till the next suggestion post... Have a good one folks!
  6. Because it's an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. There will be no Manned Aerial Vehicles (IE: One's our soldiers climb in & out of.) The Devs might change their minds in the future, but right now it's a firm "Not going to Happen."
  7. Going to limit myself to two simple questions for now till I can properly sit down and consider more important ones (another busy day ahead in life.) Are there any plans to further the differences between the West Faction & East Faction? Are there any plans to increase the Time To Kill (TTK) to further the differences between the various weapon calibers?
  8. I have a reason I didn't post those and it's tied in with the Resources coming in the next post. Yup, otherwise the Meta Game just feels like something that has been tacked onto the game rather than being built into it. I'm sure some of this might not be fun for People, but different strokes for different folks as they say.
  9. Hey Guys It's time to cover the WW3 War Map and this is going to be a fairly decent sized post, so I won't keep you reading this bla bla for long. This post is semi-tied in with my previous Meta game suggestion post (beyond both covering the WW3 Meta Game) where I covered the Factions in it. If you would like to read that before reading this, here is the link below. Like always though- If you wish to read other Suggestion posts I have made, click the link below. Otherwise, lets get started with his things work currently with the War Map and Faction Territory. ---- Dunabar's "Master Suggestion Post Archive" ---- Content of this post Section 1 - How the War Map currently works with Territory Control Section 2 - Seasonal gameplay Section 3 - Randomly Generated War Map Section 4 - Frontlines & Momentum of War Section 5 - Strategic Control Points, Operation Phases, & Operation Objectives Section 6 - Meta Game Servers ---- Section 1 - How the War Map currently works with Territory Control Currently the way a Faction takes over a territory is for players of the respective faction to donate Resources into a Region, if their faction has the most resources invested into a region, they control the region. Should the enemy faction control the region instead, they just donate resources till they have contributed the most resources in the region to take over control of it. It's as simple as that. While sweet & simple isn't always a bad thing, sometimes it leaves one wanting more, and in a Global Conflict so based around the two factions fighting each other in game. The WW3 Meta Game feels less like a Global Conflict and more like a bidding war in an Auction House in regards to claiming territory. (Please note: I will cover Resources in the next WW3 Meta Game suggestion post) So, how can this be improved? Well, before I can offer suggestions to improve it, I need to cover one very important thing first which is the Seasonal Gameplay aspect that would very likely serve a critical role in the Meta Game. ---- Section 2 - Seasonal Gameplay Because the Developers want to offer seasonal rewards to the Faction that performs the best during the season (to my knowledge), I'm going to assume the Developers want the War Map to restart every 3 months. This is a very important element in the Meta Game that needs to be considered. Unfortunately however, I don't know how the Developers really want to approach this, plan to balance stuff around it, and what all they want directly involved in it. So, I'm going to keep things easy and assume that I'm correct on the War Map being restarted every 3 months roughly, and from here begin the actual suggestions to improve the War Map & General Meta Game starting with... ---- Section 3 - Randomly Generated War Map At the start of the new season, have the starter territories of the two factions randomly generated for them with the War Map being divided up equally. This isn't anything hugely revolutionary by any means. But, this will in turn- Keep the War Map largely feeling fresh as the Two Factions would always have different regions of the War Map under their control at the start of the new season. It will allow for some speculation in story telling. 3 Examples of what I mean- Will all of Poland join the West this season? Will all of Poland join the East this season? Will parts of Poland join the West and parts join the East this season? The Players of the Two Factions will need to prioritize their Resources carefully (Again: I will cover Resources in the next WW3 Meta Game suggestion post) The Developers do not have to worry about WW3 falling into the stereotypical NATO vs. Whoever matter as much, because modern NATO Nations could very well be randomized into a Faction that other NATO nations didn't get put into. So you could have Seasons where it might be the stereotypical match up, but it could also be say...U.S, Russia, China, & Japan vs. U.K, Germany, Poland, & Korea or whatever future combinations, which means Nations are only cemented into a Faction for that season rather than permanently through whatever lore of the game. Nobody gets made out to be the aggressor ("Bad guy") because the story always changes with the new season and it's never revealed who fired the first shot to kick the third World War into gear. I personally wouldn't mind more concrete Alliances. But, I know the Developers really want to avoid modern Politics and obviously they get the final say as they're actually working on the game. I'm just a person randomly offering ideas on the internet for free. With that out of the way, lets move on to the next part ---- Section 4 - Frontlines & Momentum of War To add a realistic touch to the WW3 Meta Game, I suggest adding Frontlines & Momentum of War to the Meta Game. Frontlines are war fronts that are automatically established at the start of the new Meta Game Season between territories controlled by the Factions like so- The West controls Warsaw and the East controls Smolensk at the Warsaw-Smolensk Frontline in the picture above. If a Faction controlled Territory doesn't border a Territory belonging to the opposing faction, then no Frontline is established there, and ideally there would be multiple Frontlines across the Theaters of War. These Frontlines will also move as Territory is gained or lost throughout the season. But, when Frontlines are established at the start of the new season, one Faction will also randomly generate Momentum of War at the Frontlines like so- The West currently has the Momentum of War at the Warsaw-Smolensk Frontline and the East is currently on the Defensive in the picture above. The Momentum of War dictates which Faction is Attacking and which Faction is Defending at the Frontlines across the War Map. Wherever the Momentum of War is currently leading is where the fighting is currently taking place between the Factions (IE: What map is in rotation.) If the Faction with the Momentum of War on their side manages to secure the territory they're attacking, one or more new frontlines will be opened up (So if the West in the picture above captured Smolensk, the Frontline of Smolensk-Moscow would be opened up), and the Faction will continue to maintain the Momentum of War. Should the Faction with the Momentum of War on their side fail to secure a territory at any point, the Momentum of War will then shift to the opposing Faction like so- The Momentum of War shifts to the East and now the West is on the defensive in Warsaw at the Warsaw-Smolensk Frontline. If a Faction with the Momentum of War takes control of a Territory with multiple Frontlines, the Faction would have two different Momentum of War at their disposal (IE: Wage a two front war in that general area of the War Map.) Should the controlling Faction of that Territory however, lose control of it, then all the Frontlines will be closed by a Forced Retreat. So lets say as an example... The West controlling Smolensk meant they would be able to launch attacks into the Smolensk-Polyarny front and the Smolensk-Moscow front (I know that makes no sense, just ride the crazy example train with me.) Thus the West would have the Momentum of War on both Fronts. However, should the West fail to capture lets say...Polyarny and lost control of Smolensk before they could fail or succeed at capturing Moscow, then all their successes in Moscow will be wiped away, and both the Smolensk-Polyarny & Smolensk-Moscow Frontlines would be closed with the Warsaw-Smolensk Frontline opening back up. How does this effect games of Moscow/Smolensk being played if the West was put into a Forced Retreat? Even if all the West Teams on Moscow & Smolensk won after the Forced Retreat, their victories/scores/etc would not count for anything towards the Meta Game (they should ideally still get their Money, Resources, & Experience though) If the West was not forced to retreat however, then their victories/scores/etc would all count. But of course, how does a Faction secure victory in a territory be it on Defense or Offense to begin with?.. ---- Section 5 - Strategic Control Points, Operation Phases, and Operation Objectives Every territory has 3 (or more) Strategic Control Points on offer with the Defending Faction owning all 3 (or more...) Strategic Control Points. The Attacking team will need to complete 3 (or more...) Operation Phases to obtain all the Strategic Control Points. To complete just 1 Operation Phase though, they must complete all the Operation Objectives in that Operation Phase to move on to the next Operation Phase. Each Operation Phase however, requires Players to take part in different game modes with each Operation Objective being related to those Game Modes. Example- Operation Phase 1 - Recon Achieve X amount of Faction Victories in Recon (Insert territory here) Success = 1 Strategic Control Point in that Territory Failure = Loss of the Momentum of War on this Frontline Operation Phase 2 - Team Deathmatch & Warzone Achieve X amount of Faction Victories in Team Deathmatch (Insert territory here) Achieve X amount of Faction Score Points in Warzone (Insert territory here) Success = 1 Strategic Control Point in that Territory Failure = Loss of 1 Strategic Control Point in that Territory Operation Phase 3 - Breakthrough Achieve X amount of Faction Victories in Breakthrough (Insert territory here) Success = Capture (Insert Territory name here) and open the (insert Frontline(s) name(s) here) Failure = Loss of 1 Strategic Control Point in that Territory All the Operation Objectives can vary depending on multiple scenarios and of course whatever the Developers feel is the best call. If say for example...One Faction has a larger amount of players than the other Faction, then maybe the smaller Faction has to achieve less to be successful in the territories for a time till their Faction is populated enough. While this isn't exactly realistic sort of speak, it would at least give that smaller Faction more of a fighting chance than getting completely demolished by the larger Faction. Now I just have one last thing to cover before ending this post and that is... ---- Section 6 - Meta Game Servers In the chance that the Developers implement these suggestion (which I don't expect them to and even if they did I wouldn't expect to see them for quite awhile. IE: Well after Early Access.) I would suggest dedicating some servers to the WW3 Meta Game and some servers for just regular non-Meta Game related gameplay if it's possible. The reason for this is simply because some Players likely wouldn't be interested in the WW3 Meta Game. Maybe they find it too stressful, maybe they just want to play whatever game mode they want whenever they want on whatever map they want, don't want to deal with the chance that their victory achieved nothing for their Faction in the Meta Game because of their Faction lost a key territory, or some other entirely different reason that I haven't posted. Whatever their reason may be, if they don't want to take part in the WW3 Meta game or have it impact their day-to-day WW3 gameplay in any shape or form. I would like for them to have that option to opt out of the WW3 Meta Game entirely from top to bottom. In the end though these are just suggestions and like any suggestions I make; the Developers can do whatever they see fit to do with them. I just make the suggestion posts. With Section 6 now at a end, lets wrap this whole post up... ---- I know this post was a lot longer than my Factions post and that was mainly because there was a lot more tied in with the War Map than the Factions. This post actually would have been shorter, but I restarted it to include the Frontlines & Momentum of War in the suggestion planning. I was originally going to suggest Factions be able to attack any opposing faction region they wanted at any time. But, that really, really sounded dumb to me personally, and given that it's my suggestion post I figured I would just go whole Hog on it. Till the next Meta Game suggestion post however... Have a good one folks! PS: I'm pretty sure I covered all the needed bases on the War Map, I may be wrong of course as I was burning the late night oil once again. I will edit the post later in the event that I missed something or didn't cover something well enough in the first go. PSS: Before anyone says anything I will say it again - I will cover Resources in the next post.
  10. And that is very possible. But, then it goes right back into the thing I said about PMCs. Lets say for example; I dress my soldier up in U.S Army digs from top to bottom and another player does the same thing. If both our Characters are fighting for their country, then we're fighting each other for no reason as our goals are the exact same - fight for our country. Well, whose side is the U.S actually siding with, the East or the West? I know it's reading far deeper into it than I probably should be. But, Immersion does have a value to me as a Player and I can suspend my disbelief pretty well. But, this is one of those snags where things get really screwy to me.
  11. That was one of the reasons I came up with the Neutral themes for the names, it does offer slightly more serious sounding faction names without actually implying forces from one region of the world or another. That said however...I personally wouldn't mind some more clarity as to who is exactly fighting who. I know it's currently East vs. West. but it feels less like a global conflict between Nations, and more like two highly overpaid PMC groups (Private Military Contractors, or Mercenaries if you will) having an excessively large turf battle between each other. I know the main reason was to avoid having one side or the other painted as the aggressors (aka the Bad guys.) But, I think that can be achieved even while also having the stereotypical conflicts between Nations. When I played Battlefield 4 as either the Americans, Chinese, or Russians, I always viewed the other Team as the aggressors to be defeated even if the story didn't actually say who the aggressor actually was, and I was still able to immerse myself in this conflict between Nations. While I do highly enjoy WW3, that lack of clarity really does hinder my immersion of this supposed World War between Nations. However, I do have an idea that could fix this a bit and I'm going to suggest it when I get started on the War Map stuff in my next suggestion posts for the WW3 Meta game.
  12. I was going to suggest something moderately like this and I'm rather happy that someone did it before me (Making so many suggestion posts gets tiring after awhile lol.) My only suggestion would be- Increasing BP cost based on what primary weapon the Player brings in their Heavy Assault Kit - This way Players need to be a bit more considerate about what exactly they're bringing rather than just defaulting easily. With the more expensive stuff, they would ideally be a bit more careful as well to avoid letting so much BP go to waste so quickly. Assault Rifles -> Cheapest Weapons ( 0 BP cost Increase) Hybrid Rifles -> 2nd Cheapest Weapons (150 BP Cost Increase) Machine Guns -> 2nd Most expensive Weapons (300 BP cost increase) Anti-Material Rifles -> Most expensive weapons (500 BP cost increase) Outside of that I can only say "Test it and see how it goes." Happy my suggestion posts could play a role.
  13. Of course, I wasn't trying to imply that it wasn't possible, I just don't know if the Developers are interested in going down that path. Because if they were interested in the two factions having their own unique Weapons & Vehicles, I would imagine the Weapons & Vehicles already being divided up by now (unless they want them open to everyone for now for greater testing before dividing them between the factions, which is very possible as well.) Though one major problem I can already see is the need to address the differences between Nations that use the same weapons & vehicles, but are ideologically different from one another. A quick example of what I mean Germany uses the Leopard Tank and is part of NATO. Russia uses the T-72 Tank and is part of the CSTO. Poland uses both Leopard & T-72 Tanks and is part of NATO. I know I over simplified that. But, that is one those knots I see in the plans. But, as the saying goes; When there's a will, there's a way. Maybe I should make a dedicated topic over it starting with Weapons and then later cover the Vehicles?
  14. Hey Folks It's finally time to get my WW3 Meta Game Suggestion Post series started, I've been scratching my head trying to figure out how exactly I wanted to approach this particular matter in WW3. I was originally going to do posts covering each particular subject and everything involved with those in a single post. But, I thought it would make the posts really lengthy and ultimately it would go against how I prefer to do things. So, I'm going to be starting things off very easy with suggestions for new Faction Names and Symbols & Flags for the Factions, then move on to the next topics that require more explaining than these two suggestions in here. If you wish to read other Suggestion posts I have made, click the link below. Otherwise, lets get started with the suggestions for Faction Name Changes and Faction Symbols & Flags. ---- Dunabar's "Master Suggestion Post Archive" ---- Content of this post Faction Name Changes Faction Symbols & Flags ---- Faction Name Changes In my personal opinion, I think the names of the Factions should be changed from "West" & "East" to something different and that is because they're very flat sounding with no real sense of seriousness behind them. Taking inspiration from historical/modern day Military Alliances, I have come up with some example names that could give these two factions a bit more gravitas to them. (West Themes) J.W.S.A - Joint-Western Security Alliance W.D.O - Western Defense Organization W.U.M.C - Western Union of Military Cooperation W.D.U - Western Defense Union W.P.A - Western Protection Agreement U.W.S.A - United Western Security Axis W.T.O - Western Treaty Organization W.J.S.U - Western Joint-Security Union W.P.P - Western Protection Partnership W.J.D.I - Western Joint-Defense Initiative W.D.A - Western Defense Accord W.S.A - Western Security Accord I.W.C - International Western Coalition J.W.M.I - Joint Western Military Initiative (East Themes) E.S.P.O - Eastern Security Partnership Organization E.M.A - Eastern Military Alliance E.C.L - Eastern Cooperation League E.M.P.O - Eastern Military Partnership Organization E.J.D.C - Eastern Joint-Defense Command E.S.C - Eastern Security Coalition E.M.T.U - Eastern Military Treaty Union E.A.A - Eastern Axis Accord U.E.A - United Eastern Accord E.M.R.A - Eastern Military Response Accord E.P.A - Eastern Protection Alliance J,E,S,A - Joint-Eastern Security Alliance M.E.A - Multi-Eastern Allegiance M.E.D.O - Mutual Eastern Defense Organization (Neutral Themes) I.M.C.L - International Military Cooperation League M.D.U - Multinational Defense Union G.D.I - Global Defense Initiative A.M.S - Axis of Multinational Security I.S.A - International Security Alliance I.T.O - International Treaty Organization M.D.F - Mutual Defense Force J.S.U - Joint-Security Union M.S.I - Multinational Security Initiative I.S.C.F - International Security Cooperation Force J.S.A - Joint-Security Accord M.D.P - Mutual Defense Partnership I.A.A - International Axis Alliance A.P.O - Allied Protection Organization I know these names are not the greatest or overly original, they're just random names I came up with in a short span. But, I use these to show that the Faction names can have a little bit more of a serious sound to them and not seem so flat as just "West" & "East." By also embracing the 2026 setting for WW3, the Developers can also avoid using actual present day Military/Security Alliances like NATO, CSTO, SCO, and etc. This way the Developers don't have to potentially upset someone because their country isn't with the right Faction they think they should be with or whatever. With all that out of the way however... ---- Faction Symbols & Flags The two Factions should have their own unique Symbols & Flags and this isn't purely just for the gravitas of the two factions. It's also so players can show their support for their Factions on their Soldier or maybe on their Vehicles in the future, and whatever other causes the Devs can get use out of them. Here are two quick examples of what I'm getting at. North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Again these are just two quick examples of what I'm getting at. Obviously colors can be changed, symbols be different, and all that good stuff. But, it would be a cool way to give the Factions a little more character to them and again a way for Players to show some Faction pride through different customization options. In the end though both of these are just suggestions and the Developers can obviously do whatever they feel fit to do with them. I personally would just like to see some more interesting sounding factions than simply "West" &"East." But, that is just me. Overall neither of these two suggestions are massively pressing matters that need to be handled, they're just things I think would improve the characteristics of the WW3 Meta Game. ---- There is more that could be done to make the Factions a little more interesting. However, those would likely require some pretty deep changes/balance efforts that I don't think the Developers would find worth it all that much. So, overall I'm pretty much done with Factions for now. I was going to post suggestions for- Unique Faction Uniforms & Camos <- A lot of People have already suggested this stuff before, so I don't really see any point in making my own dedicated post over these as it likely wouldn't be all that much different from the other suggestions. Unique Faction Weapons <- I dropped this idea because it would be a very noticeable night & day level change the developers would need to make in WW3. You would need to designate Nations to certain Factions, you would need to make sure the weapons are balanced between the two factions, need to make sure both Factions have equal amounts of weapon types, and etc etc..Overall I just didn't think it fit WW3 in the end and just scrapped the idea entirely. I still have a few other things I'm considering for further differing the Factions. But, I need to think on those a little longer. For now I'm done with Factions and need to get some rest. The next suggestion post in this coming series of suggestion posts will be covering the WW3 War Map. So, till the next suggestion post... Have a good one folks! PS: Don't be surprised if I edit this post to add something considerable that I some how magically forgot to add. It was another late night of posting and I never learn my lesson lol.
×
×
  • Create New...